Voting

Mar 27, 2017

The debate over when voters get to cull election fields has been around Minnesota’s Capitol for years, but June primary advocates hope it has finally shifted in their favor. Their push has the backing of Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton, incoming Republican House Speaker Kurt Daudt and key state party officials. Opponents are fine-tuning arguments that a June election brings more pitfalls than benefits. . . .

State Democratic Party Chairman Ken Martin expects to join forces with GOP counterpart Keith Downey, who has advocated for a June primary in the past. Daudt, now the top House member, has previously been chief sponsor of the legislation.

The proposal’s fate rests with buy-in from rank-and-file legislators, many of whom take personal considerations into account. For one, the Legislature typically meets until late May, tying lawmakers down in St. Paul when potential primary challengers are freed up to campaign back in the district. There’s also the prospect of special sessions creating a backdrop where legislators on overtime face the real-time wrath of an annoyed electorate.

Hope springs eternal, and bills (HF729/SF514) are working their way through the Minnesota House and Senate to make it so.

As we read the House bill, Minnesota's 2018 primary would be the first to be affected by the legislation (often bills that change the election calendar don't take effect until the next campaign cycle but not so here) and the 2018 primary would be held on Tuesday,June 19, 2018.

Curious about how that might affect the campaign calendar, we reached out to Secretary of State Steve Simon's communication office for a schedule. Communications director Ryan Furlong sent us this chart comparing the calendar according to current statute with the one for a June primary should the law be passed:

Schedule of Events in 2018

If the Primary is moved to the 1stTuesday after the 3rdMonday in June

Current 2018 Proposed 2018

Party Caucuses date Feb 6 or party determined date Feb 6 or party determined date

According to staff at the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library (MLRL), the date to reconvene on even years is set late in the odd-year session. Following this tradition, no date has been set for the legislature to get it together in 2018.

Other March starts? March 6, 1984 and March 1, 2006. While there were a few late February convenings, the sessions mostly started between mid-January and mid-February since the 1972 amendment was passed.

Those lawmakers wishing to retain partisan endorsements will have to influence party activists by the caucus on February 6, 2018, since that's when the delegate selection and endorsement process begins. That partisan endorsement calendar will have to be truncated in order for the state parties to endorse a candidate before the filing deadline of April 10.

Dave Hughes, the 2016 Republican candidate who came relatively close to knocking the old Blue Dog off the house, is also running again. Hughes won the 2016 endorsement on April 30, 2016. Seventh District Republicans would have to hold their endorsing convention before the April 10, 2018, filing date for Miller to file for his state house seat again should the delegates give Hughes a second chance; candidates cannot file for two offices.

There's talk that the DFL might exhume and fluff up former state senator Lyle Koenen for the 17A seat; if it's an open seat, there's a chance that the salting of the earth against Koenen by the Freedom Club PAC might not deter voters from selecting the genial Clara City politician. Lots of House seniority there from the years when he served in the House prior to the late Gary Kubly's death.

It's not just Miller who will have to make the choice between a secure seat in the Minnesota House or constitutional office (and for some DFL constitutional officers, that position and the governor's office). On the Republican side, we're told in the media that Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, representative Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth, and representative Matt Dean, R-Dellwood, are potential contenders for the opening left by Mark Dayton's retirement.

On the DFL side of the aisle: start with the ambitions of Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, who lost the endorsement at the state convention in 2010 to former Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis. The legislature had adjourned, but the August primary allowed Thissen to file for his House seat and stay in the game. Former Range representative Tommy Rukavina and Roseville's senator John Marty did the same.

Unless the DFL and Republican state conventions occur before the April 10 deadline, one can foresee crowded primary ballots on June 19--potentially with the likes of Daudt, Anderson and Dean gone from the House Republican caucus in 2019, while Thissen, Rochester's Tina Leibling and St. Paul's Erin Murphy gone from the DFL caucus. For state auditor Rebecca Otto, a declared candidate, and attorney general Lori Swanson, long a rumored candidate, there'd be no turning back from whatever office they filed by April 10. Congressman Tim Walz, who declared himself as a gubernatorial candidate Monday, would also have no way of doubling back in the First.

Should the parties hold all endorsing conventions for state house districts, congressional districts and state constitutional offices by April 10, Bluestem thinks that furious calendar will leave a lot of exhausted activists. Since no one knows when the 2018 session begins, we hesitate to speculate about the stamina of the lawmakers themselves.

The Minnesota DFL is proud to announce the location for the 2018 State DFL Convention. From June 8-10, 2018, Minnesota DFLers will gather in Rochester, MN at the newly remodeled Mayo Civic Center to endorse candidates and conduct official party business.

“The Minnesota DFL has a rich history of investing in our state’s future, defending the civil and human rights of all citizens, and constantly working to move our state forward without leaving anyone behind. When the DFL convenes in Rochester in June of 2018, we will be making critical endorsements that will directly affect the lives of Minnesota’s families.

From June 8-10, 2018 DFL delegates will vote to endorse candidates for Secretary of State, State Auditor, Attorney General, the next Governor and Lt. Governor of Minnesota, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

“We are excited to bring our delegates together at the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester to endorse candidates for statewide office. With the results of the 2016 election playing out in the state legislature, Minnesotans are seeing what happens when Republicans are in control. The outcome of the 2018 election is crucial to our state’s future and the DFLers who will gather in Rochester understand the responsibility to endorse great candidates that will continue to build a better Minnesota for all.”

Regardless of the month of the primary, it's probably wise of the DFL to take a mulligan on this one, since even without passage of HF729/SF514, Minnesota House Democrats considering running for constitutional offices would have to chose their office by the current June 5 filing date--just before heading to Rochester. DFL communications director Rachel Boyer confirmed that the party was re-scheduling the date of the convention.

Poor planning or an evil Martinian plot to favor one contender over another? We're not close enough to speculate on just what that was about.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.

"A lot of you people out there think I'm anti-clean water. Believe me, I'm not," Green said, adding that his research finds water quality is greatly improving.

"To get to where there's no trend in pollution, you have to be improving," he stated, citing a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency report from 2014.

"Water cleans itself. We don't go in and put anything in to clean it. What we do is stop polluting it and it actually cleans itself," Green said. . . .

A retired biology teacher stood up to counter Green's assertion that there is less water pollution. Phosphorus levels are, in fact, getting worse in Minnesota's lakes and rivers, he said. . . .

Green is pushing for a state Constitutional amendment that replaces the Clean Water, Land and Legacy amendment with funding dedicated to roads and bridges.

Minnesota voters approved the Legacy amendment in 2008.

"Especially read Section 4 prohibiting any state employee from expressing opposition to the proposed amendment, which clearly violates the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech," Hitchcock said. "Those who voted for the original Legacy amendment recognized the need to protect and enhance and restore the very things that not only make Minnesota attractive to residents but also serve as an economic engine for the millions of visitors to the state."

"Why would you gut the whole spirit of the state to fix roads and bridges rather than enact the necessary taxes for that work?"

The lengthy list of public officials who would fall under the gag order include the director of Explore Minnesota Tourism and the Governor, Hitchcock said.

Hubbard County Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor Lynn Goodrich said that he, too, would be among those prohibited from speaking against Green's amendment.

One-third of Legacy amendment funding is supposed to go toward clean water projects, Green replied, but approximately 10 percent does.

Legacy money is also used to purchase private land and convert it to public land enhancements, he continued, removes the land from tax rolls.

"Is this really how you want the money spent?" Green asked.

The audience responded with "Absolutely!" and "Yes!" . . .

Read the rest at the Park Rapids Enterprise. It's not just Green's war on the environment that voters at the town hall challenged. Among other things, there's this gem:

The Republican lawmaker suggested that most voter fraud occurs in Hennepin County. Green claimed there were 24,000 new voter registrations that had no one living at those addresses in the 2008 election of Senator Al Franken.

The audience audibly sniggered their disapproval. A few called him a "liar."

Rep. Green, please stop casting unfounded aspersions on our voting system. On Feb. 18 at the League of Women Voters meeting in Park Rapids, Rep. Steve Green more than once made the statement that there were 24,000 same day voter registrations in the 2008 Coleman-Franken Minnesota Senate race that had no one living at that address. He further stated that these votes were fraudulently cast. When asked where he got this information from, he said that it came from the Secretary of State's office. He used this example as proof that our voting system is not secure.

Rep. Green's statement is just not true! We have called the Secretary of State and gotten the same answer — there is no record of 24,000 (or any number for that matter) of same day registrations that were fraudulent. I have also independently researched this subject and have been unable to find any evidence of these fraudulent votes. I emailed Rep. Green over a week ago letting him know what I have found and still await a response.

It's time for the truth! Our voting system is safe, secure and to be trusted.

Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, a Republican from Nisswa, said he could only speak for Minnesota, but voter fraud didn't seem to be a problem in the state. Recounts that have taken place in the state changed vote tallies only slightly, he pointed out Friday.

"I'm not worried about that in Minnesota," he said. "I don't know what's happening around the country—I don't know if he's seeing information I'm not seeing—but at least in Minnesota, I think it runs very well."

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.

The League of Women Voters Minnesota has issued the following response to Holmstadt's rant:

A recent article in the SWC Bulletin regarding Leilani Holmstadt’s opinions about the League of Women Voters (as found on her campaign’s official Facebook post) calls into questions the 97-year history of the League of Women Voters Minnesota and our work on behalf of all Minnesota residents. The League grew out of the suffragette movement and its successful effort to secure passage of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. Since that time, the League’s members have focused their volunteer time on voting rights and voter education.

Are readers aware that League members volunteer at every citizenship ceremony registering thousands of new voters and welcoming them as part of our democratic process? If you’ve never attended a naturalization ceremony, I urge you to do so to witness the joy and enthusiasm our newest voters share on that day.

From our earliest days League has been actively engaged in protecting the Constitutional right to vote for all citizens. We do this through education and advocacy. Our voter education efforts are best seen during election years when Leagues all across Minnesota host hundreds of candidate forums. These forums are often the only opportunity voters have to compare candidates’ views side-by-side. The questions are submitted by voters and reflect the concerns of the community. Our other educational work is done on the issues Minnesota faces. Were you in the audience for a community forum on sex trafficking? How about the one on racial equity? Preventing gun violence? Cultural diversity? Community policing in the wake of the shooting of Philando Castile? Had you attended any one of these or any other League forum, you would have learned that League brings together diverse points of view and conducts a civil discussion where all voices are heard.

Ms. Holmstadt also called into question the League’s position on various issues. Our Program for Action can be found on our website at lwvmn.org. In it, readers will learn that League’s positions on issues are arrived at only after our members research and study issues, hold thoughtful discussions, and arrive at a consensus. Many of our positions predate current topics by decades. In it, our positions on topics ranging from clean water to education to government transparency. But, to clear up just a couple of Ms. Holmstadt’s misstatements, please allow me the courtesy of providing facts (and the dates these positions were adopted):

Gun Violence — “Protect the health and safety of citizens through limiting the accessibility and regulating the ownership of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons, and support the allocation of resources to better regulate and monitor gun dealers. (1990, 1994, 1998)

Immigration — “Reform should promote reunification of immediate families; meet the economic, business and employment needs of the United States and be responsive to those facing political persecution or humanitarian crises. Provisions should also be made for qualified persons to enter the U.S. on student visas. All persons should receive fair treatment under the law. (2008)

Reproductive Choice — “Protect the constitutional right of privacy of the individual to make reproductive choices. (1983)

Finally, the League of Women Voters Minnesota is a 501(c)3 nonprofit nonpartisan organization. The League does not endorse candidates for office or political parties. Membership is open to all regardless of gender, citizenship or political point of view. League members do “prowl the halls” of the Capitol, as Ms. Holmstadt wrote. Did she mean to imply that citizens should not be participating in our government or advocating for things like the rights of children, protecting the environment?

Had Ms. Holmstadt, attended the candidate forum held earlier in the week for the SD54 race, she would have participated in a thoughtful discussion of topics voters in her district care most about. Her failure to appear was noted and will be seen by all those who view the video on your community access television station. Voters across Minnesota are turning out for candidate forums in unprecedented numbers because they want access to candidates and to know that the candidates will hear their concerns and represent their interests. Her decision not to participate short-changed the voters of SD54.

I would welcome the opportunity to meet with Ms. Holmstadt and to provide her with additional background about the League’s work. Perhaps together we could attend an upcoming naturalization ceremony and register voters? Together we could hear first-hand about how much voting and our democracy means to our newest voters. I hope she will take me up on this invitation

. . . League organizers had a chair and sign for Holmstadt next to her opponent, Democrat Dan Schoen, but removed the sign when the forum started. The moderator announced Holmstadt was invited but was not participating. The League’s policy is to allow a candidate to participate even if the opponent does not.

“It’s unfortunate my opponent isn’t here tonight to visit with us as well,” said Schoen, DFL-St. Paul Park, who currently represents House District 54A. The other Republican candidates, House District 54A’s Keith Franke and House District 54B’s Tony Jurgens, participated. . . .

Bluestem has to wonder if voters in the district are impressed by her hard-shell conservative views and refusal to engage with the impure.

Photo: State Representative Dan Schoen, DFL-Cottage Grove, answering voters' questions, without the pleasure of his opponent's company. Photo by Scott Wente, via the South Washington County Bulletin.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Jim NashMy great grandparents did this in 1905 when they arrived at Ellis Island from Norway. Norwegian citizens one day American citizens the next. Invested into the community, jobs, voters, the whole shebang.

"This" referenced The Draz's headnote:

And...most importantly, they pledged their loyalty to the United States of America and its citizens.

Naturalization is the process by which an alien becomes an American citizen. It is a voluntary act; naturalization is not required. Of the foreign-born persons listed on the 1890 through 1930 censuses, 25 percent had not become naturalized or filed their "first papers. . . .

General Rule: The Two-Step Process

Congress passed the first law regulating naturalization in 1790 (1 Stat. 103). As a general rule, naturalization was a two-step process that took a minimum of 5 years.After residing in the United States for 2 years, an alien could file a "declaration of intent" (so-called "first papers") to become a citizen. After 3 additional years, the alien could "petition for naturalization." After the petition was granted, a certificate of citizenship was issued to the alien. These two steps did not have to take place in the same court. As a general rule, the "declaration of intent" generally contains more genealogically useful information than the "petition." The "declaration" may include the alien's month and year (or possibly the exact date) of immigration into the United States.

There were some exceptions: "derivative" citizenship granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men; an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen between 1790 to 1922 automatically became a citizen; 1824 to 1906, minor aliens who had lived in the United States 5 years before their 23rd birthday could file both their declarations and petitions at the same time; and exceptions granted to veterans that allow a person to shorten the residency period by as much as four years.

Throughout our nation's history, foreign-born men and women have come to the United States, taken the Oath of Allegiance to become naturalized citizens, and contributed greatly to their new communities and country. The Oath of Allegiance has led to American citizenship for more than 220 years.

Since the first naturalization law in 1790, applicants for naturalization have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Five years later the Naturalization Act of 1795 required an applicant to declare an intention (commitment) to become a U.S. citizen before filing a Petition for Naturalization. In the declaration of intention the applicant would indicate his understanding that upon naturalization he would take an oath of allegiance to the United States and renounce (give up) any allegiance to a foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty. Applicants born with a hereditary title also had to renounce their title or order of nobility.

It's not something that happened just as one got off the boat, as Representative Nash jokes--with an instant transformation from being Norwegian to being an American.

One curious side note about the Minnesota state constitution: both Representative Nash's Norwegian citizen ancestors (arriving in 1905) and our editor's own grandhttp://www.mnhs.org/library/constitution/father Sorensen (1912) missed the chance for completely legal non-citizen voting.

From 1857 until 1896, the Minnesota state constitution allowed "White persons [male] of foreign birth, who shall have declared their intentions to become citizens, conformably to the laws of the United States upon the subject of naturalization" to exercise the right to vote before becoming citizens. This was in both the original Democratic and Republican versions of the document.

Photo: The Oscar II, upon which our editor's Danish grandfather reached America on May 1, 1912. It took him a few years to become a citizen.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Aug 14, 2016

An unknown entity has hired Survey Sampling International (SSI) to conduct a survey of voters in Minnesota House District 12A, but one voter who picked up a call IDed as SSI. 320-335-2732 described what appears to be very close to a push-poll.

Bluestem established the identity of the survey company by calling the number above.

A reader from Pope County forwarded us the following email from a voter in the district:

. . .Caller ID says SSI. 320-335-2732

They asked to speak to a registered voter and said they were conducting a poll. I asked who they were were and they gave some neutral u(n) recognizable name.

The first 3 sets of questions or so were pretty straight up regarding conservative v. liberal perspective, likelihood of voting in the upcoming election, DFL v. Republican v. Libertarian, etc. Who did you vote for in the 2012 presidential election - Obama or Romney. (I declined to answer some.)

Then it moved to campaign message sorts of questions that were quite long and quite slanted - all extremely positive for Backer - i.e. Something like Jeff Backer voted to return taxes to middle class Minnesotans ball blah blah . Does this make likely to vote for Backer, less likely to vote for Backer, much less/more likely. Jeff Backer supports law enforcement etc. Does this make you more likely to vote for Backer, etc.

The next set of questions were similar items about McNamar but clearly reversed and posited a very negative voting record for him and then asked if it made you less likely or more likely to vote for him. I concluded my participation with the first question after noting that it was incredibly slanted and biased.

Is this message testing on behalf of the incumbent? Or message testing by another Independent Expenditure committee whose funders' names we'll never really know?

Or is it push-polling?

Without an exact transcript, it's hard to tell. For reference sake, we recommend Marjorie Connelly's 2014 post in the New York Times' The Upshot: Ask a Pollster, Push Polls, Defined:

“Push polls” — which are not really polls at all — are often criticized as a particularly sleazy form of negative political campaigning. Voters pick up the phone to hear what sounds like a research poll. But there is no effort to collect information, which is what a legitimate poll does.

The questions are skewed to one side of an issue or candidate, the goal being to sway large numbers of voters under the guise of survey research.

But the fact that a poll contains questions with negative information about one or more candidates does not make it a push poll. Campaigns regularly conduct genuine surveys that test campaign messages and advertising, including negative content.

“Survey research organizations are always concerned about establishing a good rapport with respondents, both in order to complete the interview and more generally to maintain a positive image for the industry,” said Michael Traugott, a professor of communication studies and political science at the University of Michigan. “Having a bad experience with something that seems like a very biased poll is harmful to both these interests.” . . .

A legitimate survey will identify the call center, although it often does not mention the candidate or political party sponsoring the research because that could influence the results. The survey will contain more than a few questions and generally will ask about more than one candidate or mention both sides of an issue. Demographic questions, such as those on age, race and education, will come at the end of the questionnaire. And the number of respondents to legitimate surveys will normally be between 500 and 1,000.

“Good message testing includes pro and con statements about both your candidate and his or her opponent,” said Nancy Belden, partner of Belden Russonello Strategists. “You need to explore the strength and weaknesses on both sides.”

If what the voter describes is accurate--that all the messages about Backer are positive--this was a push-poll or a relative too close to be a kissing cousin.

Photo: Would seeing a photo of Jeff Backer (left) standing next to Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton make you more likely to vote for the Browns Valley Republican? Less Likely? No difference? Would it change if neither man wore aprons to grill turkey burgers? Photo via MPR's Tim Pugmire.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Aug 08, 2016

On Monday, Minnesota House Public Safety committee chair Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, via urged voters in House District 31B to vote for incumbent Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, in light of the latter's staunch Second Amendment record and endorsement by gun rights groups:

Republican State Representative Tom Hackbarth northeastern Anoka County, needs the help of every "Pro Second Amendment" voter in his district. He is endorsed by the NRA with an A+ rating! He also has the support of the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance with an A+ rating. Tom's opponent received a "B" rating from the NRA! Call your friends and have them vote this coming Tuesday for Representative Tom Hackbarth. Tom has a 100% Pro Second Amendment, Pro-Gun, voting record!

A comment on Cornish's Facebook page defending Bahr's lower scoring by the NRA--which has since been hidden or deleted from the wall--asserted that Bahr opposed the NRA position on individuals living in public housing being able to possess firearms, since those who can't pay their own way shouldn't be trusted with guns. Bluestem finds this notion about restricting a constitutional right concerning. Would Bahr also restrict rights to free speech, assembly, voting or religion based on receipt of public assistance?

It's totally not ironic that Cal Bahr, Hackbarth's opponent, is considered the more conservative candidate of the two Republicans, and has received the financial support of the Freedom Club State PAC and socially conservative GOP power couple Bob and Joan Cummins. Bahr also received a post-filing $4000 infusion of cash from the Senate District 31 RPM (July 22 24-hour-notice) from the Senate District 31 Republican Party, which closed the pre-primary reporting period with $2,993.12 cash on hand. It will be curious to see where the extra money came from that allowed the senate district district to cut that check, but we'll have to wait, because political party committees don't have to file 24-hour-reports on large contributions near a primary.

After more than two decades in St. Paul, GOP Rep. Tom Hackbarth lost his party’s endorsement back in April to East Bethel businessman Cal Bahr. Initially, Hackbarth wasn’t sure whether he wanted to run for his House district again, which includes Anoka, but he ultimately jumped into the primary contest. That miffed some local Republicans, who said Hackbarth initially promised to abide by the endorsement. Local Republicans activist are also likely primary voters, making this a race to watch. Hackbarth will tout his record in St. Paul and hope his name recognition carries him through to a victory.

We haven't seen any reports of polling in the district, so we'll be watching to see whether the local party endorsement beats support from the House Speaker, county commissioner and gun rights god Cornish.

Tuesday afternoon, state Rep. Tom Hackbarth went to the St. Paul Police Department and picked up his gun.

How his silver .38-caliber revolver came into the possession of the cops is a story that Hackbarth himself acknowledges sounds “really weird and odd.”

Last week, St. Paul police pulled the Anoka County Republican over and seized his loaded Smith & Wesson after he told them he was “jealous” about his “girlfriend,” whom he didn’t have any contact information for but suspected was with another man, according to police reports.

Police had been called to the Highland Park neighborhood by a security guard at a Planned Parenthood clinic, where Hackbarth had parked and appeared “suspicious.”

Hackbarth, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, was briefly handcuffed but was released without being charged, and he told the Pioneer Press he did nothing wrong or illegal. . . .

It's become the stuff of off-the-record legend around the capitol--and we can say no more.

Screengrab: Tony Cornish urges voters in House District 31B to vote for incumbent Tom Hackbarth over endorsed challenger Cal Bahr (top); the invite to the fundraiser at Running Aces (bottom)

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Aug 07, 2016

Elections are not merely a way to choose winners. They are also a way to make losers believe they have lost. When losers accept their defeat, they strengthen the democratic process by thinking ahead to the next election, deciding what they will do differently. When they fail to accept their defeat, they weaken the democratic process by challenging the legitimacy of the past election. In the worst case, civil unrest ensues. Elected officials may be assassinated, government buildings blown up, coups plotted.

Because accepting defeat requires soul searching within a party about what went wrong, there’s always a temptation to unify around “we were robbed.” In the past, candidates have found it easier to resist that temptation than rank and file party members have. That’s because political pros are more familiar with the precautionary checks and balances built into the mechanics of election administration. The average citizen understands casting a vote about as well as turning on a light switch. That is, they understand their own role at the surface of the process, but not what the election administrators (or electric utilities) do behind the scenes.

Unfortunately, 2016 is different. Three months before there are any general election results, one of the major-party presidential candidates is already stoking distrust of those results rather than tamping it down. As a result, ordinary citizens will have to assume responsibility for sober assessment of the electoral process. Here are four suggestions for what the ordinary person can do to calm the fear of election fraud.

Use Precise Language and Demand It From Others

Unsubstantiated claims of election fraud will come across as plausible if they connect with a broader, bipartisan narrative of “rigged elections.” To prevent that narrative from becoming the accepted conventional wisdom, use precise language to describe elements of the political process that you see as in need of reform.

For example, you might appropriately suggest that a particular party eliminate super-delegates from its nominating process, or that it use primaries rather than caucuses. Or you could advocate for the adoption of ranked choice (instant runoff) voting in general elections so that voters can more safely express a preference for a third-party candidate.

Each of those topics, and many others, is fair game for debate. Stay specific, though. Make sure what you are advocating is clear. Don’t obscure it with vague terms for the actors (“they” or “the establishment”), activities (“the system”), and defects (“rigged” or “broken”).

To shape the tenor of conventional wisdom, it isn’t enough to be precise in your own language. Whenever someone at the water cooler or bar gripes about “the system” being “rigged,” politely press them to be more specific.

Watch Election Administrators at Work

Learn how election officials ensure that eligible voters can vote, ineligible individuals can’t, and the votes are accurately counted and reported. Not that these processes are perfect — those who work in this area are constantly looking for refinements and opportunities to import best practices from one jurisdiction to another. But they are taking a lot of care that you probably don’t know about.

Although you can read about election procedures, you’ll gain a better appreciation if you watch some of them in action. You’ll be able to more credibly push back against fear of fraud if you speak as a first-person witness. The opportunities for observation vary from state to state; what follows are two examples from Minnesota, one on election day, the other afterward. These two processes provide important protection against fraud and also protect against non-malicious errors and equipment failures. Yet few Minnesotans even know these protective processes exist, let alone have exercised their right to observe them.

When the election judges close a precinct polling place at the end of election day, they don’t simply print out a results tape from the ballot scanner. Among other things, they count the number of voters who signed in and verify that this count matches the number of ballots cast. They also ensure that the number of blank ballots the precinct received matches the total of ballots cast, ballots set aside as spoiled or duplicated, and ballots remaining unused.

These steps detect any situation where someone inserted extra ballots into the ballot box or, conversely, removed some of the ballots. So long as the ballot box remained locked, neither of those things ought to have been possible, but the whole point of audit processes is to provide an extra, publicly observable cross-check.

You can show up at poll closing time and watch this painstaking process play out. Minnesota election law specifically grants the general public the right to observe poll closing activities. Be respectful, though, of the election judges, who are engaged in a stressful process that requires exacting attention to detail. If they lose count, they have to start over, extending an already long day. Therefore, please observe from a reasonable distance and don’t interrupt with questions about the process.

What about the risk that the ballot counters might not have counted the ballots correctly? Could malicious software have deliberately altered the counts? Various precautions guard against this, some as simple as restricting physical access to the ballot counters, so that it is difficult to install modified software. However, you don’t need to trust the programmers, technicians, or guards — there’s a simple, direct cross-check that you can observe.

After the election is over, each county randomly selects a subset of its precincts for hand counting. This “post-election review” is not the same as a recount: it is done regardless how close the election is and regardless of whether a candidate requests it. You can find out the location, day, and time your county has chosen for its post-election review; it will be somewhere between the 11th and 18th day after the election.

On that day, the general public is again legally permitted to observe from a respectful distance. You will watch bipartisan teams of election judges manually examining each ballot, sorting them into piles, and counting the number in each pile. They will ensure that they have accurately counted the ballots and they will compare their counts against those that were printed on election night by the machines. That way, you don’t have to trust all the technical details of the machines’ operation: you can see with your own eyes that the machine counts are confirmed by humans .

Observing these hand counts is not riveting. Beyond the tedium of the process, the outcome is underwhelming. Perhaps one or two ballots will be identified where the voter did not properly fill in the ovals. Any adjustments to the vote counts will be very minor. But that’s precisely the point: you can see that election administrators are willing to perform a great deal of labor just to show that there isn’t any big discrepancy. If you observe that care, you can respond to cynics who seem to think election administrators are easy marks, just blindly waiting to be defrauded.

Expect to be Surprised

When the actual weather differs from the forecast, nobody thinks the thermometers or rain gauges are rigged. And the survey professionals who forecast elections (or explain them afterward, using exit polling) uniformly take the election results as the gold standard against which they judge their work, not vice versa. They understand that their surveys can be misleading for any number of reasons. In particular, they may not understand how the survey respondents compare with the voters, or they may not understand how those individuals’ survey responses compare with their actual votes.

Election results that differ from exit polls are not a smoking gun. Nor are election results that differ from expectations in other ways. For example, some people have an idea about the statistical patterns they expect to see when comparing large precincts with small ones. Upon looking at election data from many precincts, they find that these patterns don’t actually arise. Repeatedly, and across wide areas, the actual data fails to fit the expectation. The logical conclusion is that the expectation is based on an incomplete understanding of how voters in different sized precincts behave, not that fraud is rampant, yet slipping undetected past audits such as the post-election review.

The one time when surprising results may actually be a sign of trouble is in the unofficial results released on election night and in its immediate aftermath. Seasoned election professionals and campaign operatives know to keep an eye out for precincts that are way out of their normal range. For example, a usually lopsided precinct may come in with exactly equal numbers of votes cast for two candidates. That’s a red flag that in the rush to report preliminary results, a number got transcribed from the wrong column.

Errors in the election night reporting can be unnerving. For days after the election, the totals will keep changing as more and more of the errors are found and fixed. The key thing to keep in mind, though, is that the unofficial election night reporting does not feed into the official results, even after corrections. The official results are tabulated much more carefully by well-rested clerks working under less time pressure. Until that process is complete, the updated election night reporting gives you a better approximation to what is coming than exit polls do. However, you should still expect some surprises.

Keep Voter Identification in Perspective

Every state conducts its elections differently. One of the highest profile areas of difference is how voters are identified. In Minnesota, the voters identify themselves by stating their name and address. In some other states, they need to show an official document. This makes it harder to vote, whether one is a fraudulent impersonator or simply a voter without the requisite documentation at hand. However, this distinction does not mean that states such as Minnesota can expect significant fraud through the appearance of impersonators at their polling places.

The 2016 election is not the first with strongly motivated participants. People have poured billions of dollars into trying to win previous elections. Nor is it the first election in which many states allow undocumented voters — the recent court cases have generally preserved the status quo. Yet there have been close to zero incidents detected in which someone signed into a polling place under a false identity.

Ah, but just because impersonation isn’t detected, does that mean it isn’t occurring? The fearful seize upon this question. They would have you believe that without careful checking of identity documents, there would be no way to detect an impersonation. If that were true, then a lack of detections would be meaningless. But it isn’t true.

An impersonation might be detected in any number of ways. Some of those ways might result in the perpetrator being caught. For example, the staff at the sign-in table might personally know the target of the impersonation. Or the impersonator might brag about their crime to someone who rats on them. Other forms of detection might let the perpetrator get away. For example, the target of the impersonation might show up to vote and find their line in the poll book already signed. Or election officials removing a deceased individual from the election rolls might find a record of that individual having voted between the date of death and the date of removal.

None of these things are happening. Not only aren’t impersonators getting caught, they also aren’t leaving tell-tale traces behind. Election administrators are looking for all those things, and they aren’t finding them. Some advocacy groups claim that they have found such signs themselves. They have turned in lists of hundreds of suspected cases. But these have invariably turned out to result from the advocacy groups not checking as carefully as the election administrators do. For example, a suspiciously signed line in the poll book turns out to be a simple off-by-one error. Or a case of John Doe voting after death turns out to be John Doe, Jr., voting after John Doe, Sr., had died.

Could an impersonator get lucky and avoid detection? Sure, in any individual instance. However, throwing even a close election would require hundreds or thousands of impersonations. The math is daunting. Suppose you are such a clever fraudster that you can impersonate someone with a 99% chance of going undetected. If you attempt two impersonations, the chance of getting away with both of them — not being detected in either — is .99 squared. Three impersonations would be .99 cubed. And 300 impersonations would be .99 raised to the 300th power, which happens to be less than 5%. That is, even if each time you are nearly sure to go undetected (99% sure), once you’ve committed the crime 300 times, you are nearly sure (95% sure) of being detected somewhere along the way.

Putting that math together with the lack of detected impersonations gives strong evidence that nobody is trying to rig an election by committing hundreds of impersonations. Also, keep in mind that nobody knows in advance just how close an election is going to be. Senator Franken was elected in 2008 by a 312-vote margin, but if anyone had tried to rig that election, they wouldn’t have known in advance that 313 impersonations was enough. Even though it would have been a recklessly large crime spree, it wouldn’t have been enough to provide any confidence of victory. Perhaps that’s why even strongly motivated campaigns concentrate on turning out legitimate voters instead.

Photo: Austin, MN election administrators print on 2014 election results after voting closed at the Mower County Senior Center. As our guest contributor explains above, respectful members of the public can observe this process. Via Austin MN Herald.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

I am taking issue with the News Tribune’s need to tell people who to vote for via endorsement editorials. In this country, in a pure sense, people are supposed to sort out the facts and make their own decision.

Getting a biased slant from a liberal newspaper that leans socialist is not giving voters the truth, but only what’s interpreted through the eyes of some editorial board. Stay out of it. The newspaper is there to give an unbiased account of the facts, not someone’s interpretation of the facts.

Do you ever wonder why newspapers are dwindling in subscriptions? I have decided that whenever a newspaper such as the News Tribune or Minneapolis Star Tribune recommends a candidate I will vote the other way. I can make up my own decision, thank you.

The only reason I can fathom for newspapers making endorsements is that they must believe the voting public is ignorant and needs to be told what to do. Of course, that is the Democratic Party’s belief as well.

Given his antipathy to the Duluth News Tribune (and the Star Tribune, for that matter) over perceptions of liberal bias--and his loathing of the Democratic Party--we're wondering how that decision to vote the opposite way of the New Tribune's endorsements.

It must have been tough, but we're completely certain that Gerdes is a man of his word and voted for Nolan, Dayton (and Al Franken) rather than be told who to vote for by that socialist-leaning fishwrap.

That freedom might have lessened the soul-sickness of voting for Democrats in the Eighth's congressional district. If Gerdes is a man of his--and we have no reason to doubt his word-- he would have voted for the late Jim Oberstar in 2010, after the News Tribune endorsed challenger Chip Cravaack, especially since as MinnPost media critic David Brauer reported, Duluth editor: Fargo didn't dictate our Cravaack endorsement.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Gazelka [R-Nisswa] talked about the Republican ideal of free enterprise. He also touched on the presidential election. Gazelka, who served as a state co-chair of the Ted Cruz campaign during the Republican primary, said he would vote for Donald Trump although he never actually said Trump's name in his remarks.

"I want somebody that at least says they're pro-life, at least says that they're going to appoint conservative judges, at least says good things about America and that America can be great, doesn't apologize for America," he said. "There's only one candidate that at least says those things. That's who I'm voting for."

That's a ringing endorsement, for sure. There was also a bake sale auction, Kayser reports.

Photo: Minnesota State Senator Paul Gazelka not saying Trump's name at the Falls Ballroom. Photo by Zach Kayser/Brainerd Dispatch.

Bluestem Prairie is conducting its summer fundraising drive. If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Thumbs Up: If a candidate refuses to appear at a debate or candidate forum, that shouldn’t stop voters from hearing the views of his or her opponent. That’s why we fully support the Minnesota League of Women Voters’ (LWV) announcement that this year, all League candidate forums statewide will now take place as scheduled, even if one of the candidates in a two-candidate race is unwilling or unable to attend. In the past, the League canceled a forum if a candidate didn’t confirm attendance or didn’t arrive at the scheduled start time. This was done to avoid creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. However, according to LWV Minnesota executive director Susan Sheridan Tucker, it appears that some candidates and/or their political party attempted to manipulate LWV and its events by not appearing or not responding. “We feel this policy change respects the time and interests of voters and candidates in attendance, and we will conduct the forum in a manner that is neutral to the absent candidate,” Tucker said.

League of Women Voters members all across Minnesota are focused on working with other community organizations to build broad coalitions together in hosting candidate forums before both the primary and general elections.

Nonpartisan organizations interested in learning more about bringing a candidate forum to their community should contact Liz Haan, community organizer, at lhaan@lwvmn.org or a member of the local League. Information on local Leagues can be found at lwvmn.org under the "Local Leagues" tab.

We hope that nonpartisan organizations across the state work with the League to set up debates, especially for seats with primaries.

Photo: Minnesota House candidates participated in a 2014 forum sponsored by the Alexandria League of Women Voters and the Echo Press. They included (left to right) Mary Franson, R-incumbent in District 8B, Jay Seiling, DFL-challenger in District 8B, Jeff Backer, R-challenger in District 12A, Jay McNamar, DFL-incumbent in District 12A, Paul Anderson, R-incumbent in District 12B and Gordy Wagner, DFL-challenger in District 12B. (Echo Press photo by Al Edenloff).

Bluestem Prairie is conducting its summer fundraising drive. If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

May 31, 2016

Just in from the Minnesota Secretary of State's office, news of a rulemaking change that will help the state's veterans with registering on Election Day. Here's the release:

Today, Secretary of State Steve Simon announced that he has added the Veteran Identification Card to the list of acceptable photo identification documents Minnesotans can now use for same-day voter registration, which like all other photo identification documents that do not contain an address must be combined with an authorized proof of residence.

The addition of the Veteran ID Card is expected to benefit over 115,000 Minnesotans and was enacted via an administrative rulemaking process.

“We should be doing everything we can to make it as easy as possible for the men and women who have served our country to vote, and that’s what we’re doing today,” said Secretary Simon. “In many cases, a Veteran Identification Card may be the only form of current identification veterans may have in their possession, and now they will be allowed to use it when registering to vote on Election Day.”

Currently, 32 states (including Minnesota) and the District of Columbia accept the Veteran ID Card as a form of either primary or secondary identification for voting.

Veteran ID Cards are issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to veterans who are enrolled in the VA health care system. The cards contain a photo of the individual and the individual’s fullname. They are used to access health benefits through the VA.

For a complete list of approved photo identification and proof of residence documents Minnesotans can use for same day registration, click here.

Sample Family Values

We believe that the easier it is for all eligible voters to register and cast their ballots, the better. Voting is a right, not a privilege. It's great that Gayle Sample's grandniece Jane can use her Veterans ID Card along with a proof of residence to register to vote on Election Day

We also hope Gayle renewed her license.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's reporting and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

To at least some rather sketchy Donald Trump backers, the fact that two Cuban-American conservatives are seriously figuring in the run for the White House is apparently nothing to celebrate.

A couple of Trump supporters with what critics say are racist backgrounds are putting out calls to their followers not to vote for the billionaire’s main rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, because they are Cuban-American.

Yes, they went there.

“Don’t vote for a Cuban,” warns a new robocall that was going out to Minnesota and Vermont voters in support of Trump, the Daily Beast reported earlier this week. Behind the call is a super PAC tied to a white nationalist party. Trump has previously disavowed past calls by the super PAC in Iowa, and there is no evidence linking his campaign and the PAC.

Hibbing resident Roberta Maki, a registered DFLer, said she was shocked by the rhetoric when she played it back on her voice mail.

"It was just sort of surprising, because it's very brazen," said Maki, who thinks she was accidentally added to a GOP mailing list. "It was unbelievable. Somebody had to write this down, and it's not just a rant." . . .

State Rep. Carly Melin, DFL-Hibbing, took to Twitter to inform her followers that she'd also received the call, and recorded the message on her phone. Rochester residents also reported on social media that they'd also been targeted by the group. . . .

As a point of fact, Minnesota does not ask voters to register along partisan lines. Instead, voters motivated to caucus pick one party; primaries are open, but a voter must vote only for candidates in one party.

That being said, we're curious if any caucusing Republicans are getting these calls. As KEYC-TV reported last night, both Rubio and Cruz enjoy support among party activists and elected leaders. [end update]

I got a white supremacist robocall tonight. I don't mean they alluded to things that lead me to believe they were white supremacist, I mean it was literally a message about the supremacy of the white race and why I should caucus for Donald Trump. I know Mr. Trump is not paying for them but he certainly isn't distancing or toning down his rhetoric in response. Something to think about when these views are being seen as "main stream".

I want to thank the community for your support of the Women’s Works program in October. As the girls from the county group home left newly inspired I knew our work would have been worth it, even if they had been the only guests. For those who missed the show there will be an encore performance at 4:30 p.m. Nov. 22, at the Little Theatre in New London, free tickets available at Eventbrite.

Women’s Works was the culmination of an idea that started a few years ago with the movie “Captain Phillips.” A Minnesota Somali actor was nominated for an Oscar. This was exciting, especially for the Somali community.

When I saw the film I noticed Somali families and their children in attendance. I thought great but, in the film all the Muslim Somali characters are the bad guys and every single one dies in the end.

This reminded me of my Native American friends who told me as kids they used to go see cowboy and Indian movies just so they could see someone like them. They did this despite the fact that they were always portrayed as the bad guys. They went because it feels better as a human to be included, even if it isn’t positive.

I promised if I ever had a chance I would find a way to show a fuller and more positive way to represent my Muslim friends and neighbors. Then I saw the award-winning dance ensemble Al Taw’am. They are twin sisters who choreograph and perform original pieces wearing the hijab. They believe their abilities are a gift to be used to inspire others.

From this spark a show was created that included original work from local artists including dance, storytelling and music. The pieces spoke about gratitude, friendship, ability, living and dying as women. We used our individual talents to bring us together.

We came together as the Business and Professional Women’s Association, Empower of United Way, League of Women Voters, Polka Dot Powerhouse, Willmar Area Community Foundation, and Vision 20/40 and it was a success.

Justice 4 All, a Twin Cities-based organization, promotes giving the thousands of Minnesotans with criminal records a second chance at becoming productive members of society.

Justin Terrell, program manager for Justice 4 All, gave a presentation Monday at Bethel Lutheran Church on behalf of his campaign.

“We want to make sure people are stepping out, rather than stepping back into their old ways,” Terrell said during Monday’s presentation during a League of Women Voters meeting.

A total of nearly 60,000 people were turned away from polls in the 2014 election due to felony convictions, according to a New York University study.

Unclear voting laws prevent even more felons from voting in Minnesota, said Jessica Rohloff, leader of League of Women Voters.

“I imagine there are people who are afraid and don’t want to get their second felony,” Rohloff said. “We need to make this simpler.”

Minnesota law requires felons to complete incarceration time, along with any probation and parole time, before they can vote.

Justice 4 All’s mission is to allow those with a criminal record the right to vote as soon as they are released from prison or jail, as is the case in several other states.

A disproportionate number of those not allowed to vote in Minnesota are also African-American, Terrell said.

While only 5.7 percent of Minnesota’s population is African-American, 34.6 percent of Minnesota’s prison population is African-American, according to data from the U.S. Census and Minnesota Department of Corrections.

“This is insane. Systems are at play creating these kinds of dynamics,” Terrell said. “If it’s a problem people made, it’s a problem people can solve.”

Mayor Marv Calvin attended Monday’s presentation and agreed that felons should have the right to vote once they are out in the community.

“I think people should look at this issue and get involved by contacting representatives,” Calvin said. “I think it is an important issue. If you are not incarcerated, you should be able to vote.” . . .

Somehow we get the distinct impression that the racists aren't being particular about who they call in the Willmar area. Rohloff is one of the many people working to make the city a friendly and welcoming place for everyone, the sort of engaged citizen praised in Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton's recent letter praising the regional center, Kudos on defending Willmar immigrants:

I read with interest the West Central Tribune’s Jan. 21 editorial defending Willmar’s immigrant community. I commend the editorial board for speaking out against hateful speech that demeans Willmar’s East-African residents. I thank you for celebrating the invaluable economic and cultural contributions of these hard-working Minnesotans.

Minnesota was built by immigrants and pioneers. Today’s immigrants may look and sound different than the Germans and Scandinavians of generations past. But their hard work, and the dreams and aspirations they hold for their children, themselves, and our communities are no different.

Willmar is stronger because of our immigrant neighbors. So is Minnesota.

Willmar and the West Central Tribune have taken an important stand. I applaud your courage. And I stand with you as a partner as we resolve to make our state a welcoming place for all Minnesotans.

Mark Dayton

Governor

Moroever, four years ago, Rohloff unsuccessfully sought the DFL endorsement for the local legislative seat. Since Minnesota doesn't have a system of party registration, we have conclude that the white nationalists aren't from around here.

In response to a request for a reaction, the Trump campaign issued a brief statement that alluded to the robocalls but did not address the Duke comment: “Mr. Trump nor the campaign have knowledge of this group or the calls being made. We have disavowed all super PACs and any related activities.”

It’s well known that Trump’s candidacy has attracted open support from avowed white supremacists and anti-immigration groups. The campaign is not known to have courted any directly, but Trump’s critics say his calls for a wall on the Mexican border, the ejection of millions of undocumented immigrants and a ban on Muslim immigrants have rallied enthusiastic support from racist groups and individuals.

A copy of the robocall

As we finished up this post, another friend in the Willmar area sent us an audio file of the robocall he received. We'll post it after we authenticate it.

Bluestem has called Rohloff for a comment; we'll post her response when she gets back to us.

Update: In addition to voters in Hibbing, Rochester and Willmar, a least one reader in Waseca received a call. Robert Hunter writes:

I think I got the robo call you wrote about last night. I heard the first 30 seconds and hung up.

One can certainly understand that.

Photo: Jessica Rohloff's America. Justice 4 All speaker Justin Terrill is at the left in the photo; Rohloff is the woman in the blue top. Via Facebook.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's posts and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

At the Pioneer Press's Political Animal, David Montgomery takes a look at Mapping Ecklund’s landslide. Hop over for his signature interactive maps (fun stuff). He reports:

The only real race in the District 3A special election Tuesday turned out to be for second place.

Republican Roger Skraba held off independent Kelsey Johnson by 255 votes to finish in second place, but both candidates were far behind runaway winner Rob Ecklund, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidate who won with 63.85 percent of the vote.

Ecklund racked up huge margins in his home base of International Falls, but he didn’t need his 80 percent vote shares to win. Ecklund came out on top in all but three of the 83 precincts in the district.

The money race

While Ecklund raised at least $51,137.87 for the bid (pre-general campaign finance reports cover the period from August 24 through November 24), his cost per vote received was less than that spent by third-place finisher Johnson, who raised $19.910 by the reporting deadline.

Skraba, the second place candidate, received 1399 votes, and had spent $1879.65 of $5578.29 raised by the pre-general campaign finance reporting deadline of November 24. That's a minimum of $1.34 spent per vote, and $3.99 if Skraba had spent all he'd raised by the deadline and took in no more money after the deadline.

For the 1144 votes she received, Johnson spent a minimum of $15,012.39 in cash and in-kind contributions, of $19,910 raised by the pre-general campaign finance reporting deadline of November 24. That's $13.22 per vote as of November 24, and $17.40 per vote if she had spent all she had and raised no more.

It's a bit more work to break down Ecklund's spending per vote, since a good portion of the spending per vote occurred before the primary, although the $9550 in party money and $5456.87 in state subsidy came after the primary win.

But if we cheat with our math and count primary dollars as earning name recognition and good will toward the general, those 4591 votes cost a minimum of $9.70 per vote and at least $11.19 if Ecklund spent all of the $51,137.87 he took in by the pre-general deadline.

By way of contrast, in the uncontested primary in 46A, 3254 ballots were cast and counted, with Peggy Flangan collecting 3137. The cost per vote for Minnesota's second newest state rep? $6.80 if she spent no more than the $21,402.82 spending reported in her pre-general report.

Or a whopping $12.44 per vote if the entire $39,017.30 raised by her committee was spent before the early November special election. We suspect that some of that cash and the good will it represents will be banked for the 2016 election.

Oct 02, 2015

We're sending mailers in key districts where we think the voters - and potential Republican delegates - deserve to know how poorly their legislator performed this session.

We're working with other groups who feel similarly about Speaker Daudt's caucus increasing spending by $3 billion, enacted tough regulations on small businesses and supporting warrantless, mass surveillance. We do not believe any of these things are "small government" programs so the legislators in question have no right to call themselves conservatives.

Since that's rather broad, Bluestem has asked three questions in a follow-up email:

What criteria does Liberty Minnesota PAC use in determining a key district?

What other groups is Liberty Minnesota PAC working with to get this message out?

Are any of these groups contributing direct or in-kind contributions to help get the word out?

Eggers replied via email:

The mailer, scorecard and website is fully-funded and provided by Liberty Minnesota PAC.

We use a variety of criteria in determining a key district but I can't comment further on that.

We'll have to wait until February to see who funded the Liberty Minnesota PAC, while perhaps we'll crowdsource additional questions about the criteria used to determine a key district.

It's a worthy question. We're curious what made Franson's House District 8B more strategic than the "A" side of her district (Franson scored 42 percent, putting her at 23 from the top), than Buddy Nornes' B side (who's number 62 on the list with a 33 percent score).

After all, Nornes is a committee chair and one wished to metaphorical put Speaker Daudt's noggin on a pike, one might consider attacking committee heads with truly bad scores. One can see the logic in seeking out Tara Mack's head, since she's at the very bottom of the entire House rankings. Picking Ag Policy vice-chair Franson (in the 23th position) over nearby Ag Policy chair and gentleman farmer Paul Anderson (12B) who is tied for 95th with District 10 freshmen Dale Lueck and Josh Heintzemen, as well as Mountain Lake Ag Mafia champion and Override Six member Rod Hamilton, who chairs the Ag Committee? A bit of a head scratcher.

While Watchdog.org and The UpTake get money from partisan donors, the money trail behind five-month-old Alpha News is much more difficult to track.

Its website says nothing about its donors or editorial process, but does carry ads and asks readers to donate. One thing is certain: Alpha News has ties to a prominent Republican donor and the political group he founded years ago.

On September 3, the Liberty Minnesota PAC shared an event wherein genial Tea Party activist Walter B. Hudson was sharing the scorecard at the Minnesota Tea Party Alliance's next meeting.

Now Cyndy Brucato may have convinced readers of MinnPost that the Minnesota Tea Party Alliance is "the" tea party in Minnesota--and it certainly lightens her workload to assert that, while keeping things simple for the DFL's messaging machine. That's tidy and motivated, but not a terribly accurate picture since the Tea Party movement is Minnesota retains more than a few decentralized outposts.

. . .Here in Minnesota, two opportunists in particular have done a great job of establishing themselves as self-appointed "leaders" of the Tea Party movement, they being Jack Rogers and Jake Duesenberg of the Minnesota Tea Party Alliance. They have a sweet URL that makes them seem extra legit, teaparty.mn and they operate the MN Tea Party PAC.

Jack and Jake haven't been as successful as the guys from FreedomWorks, only raising $8,200 in 2014. They spent $8,900. The irony of the deficit spending is probably lost on them. A total of $0 was spent to support the election of any candidates. They did spend $1,300 on a wi-fi hostspot, $1,110 on Facebook ads, and just shy of $1,000 to Constant Contact for emails.

Over $1,700 of their expenses (an atypically high 19%) are unitemized, probably either because of their overwhelming commitment to transparency, or because it's none of the government's business how they spend their money. Just guessing on that last part.

Credit where credit is due, Jack and Jake may not raise a lot of money, but they have perfected the art of over the top symbolic gestures as a way to generate media coverage. As just one example Jack was behind an aborted attempt in 2014 to orchestrate a meaningless show vote of "No Confidence" in then Minority Leader, now Speaker of the House Kurt Daudt. A quick search of the Star Tribune archives shows Jack has been mentioned in 12 recent stories, Jake, sadly, only 6. In most of these stories you can find Jack and Jake bad mouthing Republicans. About the only candidate they seemed to like in 2014 was Jeff Johnson. Take from that what you will.

Kolb concludes:

I think it's high time Republicans say the same thing to Jack and Jake. No serious candidate for office or elected official should attend any event sponsored by the MN Tea Party Alliance. The group seems to exist for the sole purpose of promoting Jack and Jake. It's time other Republicans stop playing along.

Sadly, no. The North Metro Tea Party's October meeting will feature state senator Roger Chamberlain (72%; ranked 3rd) and Rep. Peggy Scott, who flunked at 42%, to be ranked at number 23, a tie with Representative Franson, who was targeted. The Andover Republican, who chairs the Civil Law and Data Practices Committee, will address how "Federal Government is pressuring MN to comply with their national drivers's license."

Other allies

During the session, Liberty Minnesota PAC enjoyed some other allies (Sunday Sales, the Republican Liberty Caucus), though these groups don't seem to be involved in the postcard campaign to spreading the news about some flunking Republicans.

For instance, Liberty Minnesota PAC has been an ally of Restore the Vote, as the April 29 post above and others reveal, but the criminal justice reform group doesn't show up recently on the Facebook page.

But the issue does dovetail into some of the scuttlebutt we're hearing from multiple sources about the money for the targeted campaign. One of the rumors we've been hearing from our sources is the notion that West Metro conservative moneybags Robert Cummins (see 2012 MPR report Stealth donor gives millions to GOP candidates, causes) is the contributor funding the scorecard campaign against House members.

But we've also heard Cummins opposes restoring the vote for people convicted of felonies and have been released from custody (though still on probation)--and this moneyed opposition might be an answer to Doug Grow's mystery.

Supporters say it's essential for preventing voter fraud before a ballot is counted, rather than prosecuting someone after the election is over.They point to nearly 200 felons prosecuted for voting in 2008 before they were off probation, which is illegal.

Opponents point out those felons didn't pretend to be someone else, which is what photo ID's are designed to prove. There are no documented cases in recent history of Minnesotans being prosecuted for voter impersonation or double voting.

Nearly 90 percent of all the money raised during 2012 by Protect My Vote came from a single donor, Joan Cummins of Deephaven. She is married to prolific Republican donor Robert Cummins, who owns Primera Technology, a worldwide printer supplier based in Plymouth.

We'll wait with abated breath until February 1 (the year-end reports will be posted online on Ground Hog's Day/Candlemas 2016) to see who is funding these attacks and who is being paid to put them together and mail them.

Should anything interesting show up in the reports, Daudt and loyal members of his caucus will have about a month to organize, while allies like the Republican Liberty Caucus and Restore the Vote can assess their own legislative strategies.

That late start seems to have escaped the strategic planners at Liberty Minnesota:

Meanwhile, Bluestem notes in passing that the Liberty Minnesota PAC joined in the post September 1 slut shaming directed at Tara Mack:

Photo: The photo used for the report postcard sent to the Alexandria-area district. Uffda.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Primaries in special elections are notoriously low-turnout events, so Bluestem thought we'd check in to see how many voters had sent in the mail-in ballots used in the huge, unorganized townships across the State of Maryland-sized district or requested absentee ballots.

We spoke to three of the four counties' auditors, two of whom reported decent primary "turnout" for mail-in ballots: 30 percent in Koochiching County and 44 percent in Cook County. Voters across the district are fairly well engaged for a special election.

The Minnesota Secretary of State's office also keeps track of this data. Here's what Secretary of State Simon's communications director sent us:

Here’s the numbers for mail and absentee ballots as of 2:50PM today. Note: The number of ballots returned will change as counties receive more ballots back before close of voting tomorrow.

The push to restore voting rights to former felons in Minnesota is picking up momentum at the State Capitol.

Currently 47,000 people who've been convicted of a felony aren't allowed to vote because they're still on probation. Some served time in prison and are now completing the community portion of their sentences. Others never went to prison but were sentenced to lengthy probation periods as an alternative.

A bi-partisan group of lawmakers has thrown its support behind a bill that would make convicted felons eligible to vote as soon as they're released from incarceration. So far 28 GOP lawmakers have joined DFL legislators to support the Restore the Vote legislation.

"If you're able to be released on your own recognizance out into the community you certainly should be eligible to vote," Rep. Jerry Hertaus, a Republican from Greenfield, told reporters Thursday. "And I'm very proud to be a co-author on this bill."

A fellow Republican, Rep. Joe McDonald of Delano, said that forgiveness and redemption are deeply rooted values in American culture and religion. . . .

The author of the voting rights restoration bill in the House is Rep. Tony Cornish, a Republican from Vernon Center. Rep. Cornish has a background in law enforcement and wears handcuff lapel pin to reinforce his reputation as a strong law and order legislator.

While the only state representatives of the 35 state representatives supporting HF342 who serve near Willmar are Representative Mary Franson (R-Alexandria) and Glenn Gruenhagen (R-Glencoe), Bluestem hopes that the new mayor and these staunch conservatives can persuade the new and old crop of state representatives in Willmar and the Upper Minnesota River Valley to join them in supporting this compassionate and common sense measure.

Photo: A screengrab from the WC Tribune video of the LWV/Justice4All meeting Monday at Bethel Lutheran Church at Willmar.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Nov 04, 2014

According to University of Minnesota at Morris college student Rachel Haile, students who live off campus have also experienced snags in voting in Stevens County.

Haile, who had registered to vote using her current address on Election Day 2012, learned that she was not on the voter rolls when she went to vote today.

She told Bluestem Prairie that she had received a card indicating that she was registered after voting in 2012 and had not moved or voted elsewhere, so she anticipated that she would have no difficulty voting today. Instead, Haile learned that she wasn't registered.

Fortunately, she was able to register again and voted, but told Bluestem Prairie that she saw other students who thought that they were registered discovering that they were not on the lists. Haile said that they left the polls to obtain documents that would prove their residence in the precinct or registered friends who could legally vouch for them.

She did not know how many had been able to vote upon returning or had been discouraged and not returned to the polling place.

. . .After hearing about concerns on campus, Barsness said staff in her office spoke with Stevens County Attorney Aaron Jordan and the Minnesota Secretary of State’s office to make sure their interpretation of the election law was correct.

“Our goal is to make sure voting happens correctly, properly and legally,” said Barsness.

Barsness said she did not know how many students were affected.

Hartlestad said he had written statements about the ID issue from five students, but there were “many others” who he was not able to grab or weren’t comfortable providing a written statement.

Hartlestad said some students returned with the information the election judges asked for and were able to vote.

We'll update our coverage of voting snafus in Morris as this story develops.

Photo: A gathering on the Univeristy of Minnesota Morris campus.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Bluestem contacted the Minnesota Office of the Secretary of State's communications director Nation Bowie about the situation facing college students living on campus at the University of Minnesota at Morris who are trying to use their student ID cards to vote.

According to a statement from Bowie, the OSS is aware of the situation and has advised the county of the proper manner to process student voters' needs:

Yes, we called the county elections office and discussed the issue: the students are allowed to use a college ID as a proof of residence in combination with the student housing list (that has been provided by the university), or in combination with a bill.

In addition to providing a proof of residence, all Election Day registrants must fill out the voter registration application (see attached) — and it is up to the voter to decide which box applies to them in regard to section 7.

Just 50 minutes ago, MPIRG organizer Erik Hatlestad tweeted that students continue to be turned away:

Three more students were just turned away, demanding driver's licenses rather than their student IDs.

Nov 03, 2014

Bluestem Prairie's world headquarters is in sunny Maynard in Minnesota House District 17A, among the 20 battleground districts in the fight for control of the Minnesota House of Representatives.

One of the things we're hearing from neighbors and friends is how sick everyone is of the dozens of direct mail pieces we've been bombarded with in the district.

Most of these are "Independent Expenditures" from political parties and political action committees that by law are out of a candidate's control. He or she can't coordinate with these entities on independent spending.

But many voters don't realize that--and get angry with the candidate, rather than the messenger. Perhaps the worst thing of all is hearing a person complain about attack mail with Andrew Falk's and Tim Miller's picture on it. They haven't read the copy of the mail piece attacking a candidate before tossing it, but they remember the candidate's photo on the piece and believe that the piece is from that individual.

We caught a video of two cats chatting. Bluestem urges all voters to check the return addresses and disclaimers on the political mail they're getting. It's best to judge candidates by what they say and write about themselves.

But we'll let the cats at the top of the post do the talking, as annoying as this mailbox is:

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:

Nov 02, 2014

Minnesota election law makes it easy for eligible citizens to register and vote. Those who want to suppress voting don't like this at all.

This election, the Orwellian-named Minnesota Voters Alliance is asking its friends to call in perfectly legal activity to the organization as "election irregularities."

On the Republican-friendly group's list of "irregularities"? College students voting without using a drivers' license, more than two people using an address to vote, an established registered voter vouching for the residence in a precinct of more than one person, and assistance for impaired voters.

That truly is a remarkable list. Here's another aspect of Cilek's letter that's reality-challenged: what he proposes doing in response to "a call ... alleging a blatant, ongoing, unlawful activity in the polling place." He says that MVA will (among other things) "send witnesses to the scene to gather more data as needed." Recall that the scene is "in the polling place." So, exactly what witnesses could go there? Minnesota Statutes section 204C.06 has the answer, and it isn't a very long list. Unless MVA has at their disposal some properly credentialed news media representatives (or some even less likely possibilities), I don't see how they can legally make good on this. In fact, they wouldn't even be allowed within 100 feet of the building.

Students can register and vote without drivers licenses

None of these activities are illegal under Minnesota election law. As the Brennan Center for Justice notes, college students do not need a driver's license to vote:

Acceptable proof of address and identification includes: a valid Minnesota driver’s license, learner’s permit, non-driver ID card, or a receipt for any of those three that shows your current address; a current student photo ID card (provided your name appears on a housing list your school has provided to the county auditor); a current student fee statement that includes your voting address (you will also need to show a photo ID with this); a tribal identification card that has your current address, signature and picture; prior registration in the same precinct with a former name or address on the roster; or a “Notice of Late Registration” letter.[19] You can also present any of the above IDs, or a U.S. passport, or a U.S. military ID, even if they do not show your current address, as long as you also present a bill (due within 30 days of the election) that does show your current address.[20] Acceptable bills include those for telephone or cell phone service, television or internet provider services, electric, gas, water, garbage, solid waste, or sewer services.[21] Documents may be displayed on an electronic device like a smartphone.[22] . . .

No law against more than two voters at an address

As for more than two people using an address to vote, Minnesota Voters Alliance again seems to be targeting young voters, who are more likely to share apartments and houses to save on rent or to live at home while attending high school, or who return home after college while they establish themselves. It's also not unusual for children in farm families to stay on the home place until marriage.

In college towns, fun-loving and idealistic young folks sharing rent in places like the famous Bump City house (in Morris, located in the tight Minnesota House District 12A) aren't breaking any election law.

Moreover, it's not unusual for older Minnesotans to move into their children's homes, or those of nieces and nephews.

One previously registered voter may vouch for up to seven in precinct

While the Minnesota Voters Alliance and many Republicans don't like vouching, under Minnesota statute, a voter registered before election day can vouch for up to eight voters' residence in the precinct; employees of residential facilities in a precinct may also vouch. Here's the relevant section of statute outlining the rules for the registered voter to vouch:

(4) having a voter who is registered to vote in the precinct, or an employee employed by and working in a residential facility in the precinct and vouching for a resident in the facility, sign an oath in the presence of the election judge vouching that the voter or employee personally knows that the individual is a resident of the precinct. A voter who has been vouched for on election day may not sign a proof of residence oath vouching for any other individual on that election day. A voter who is registered to vote in the precinct may sign up to eight proof-of-residence oaths on any election day. This limitation does not apply to an employee of a residential facility described in this clause. The secretary of state shall provide a form for election judges to use in recording the number of individuals for whom a voter signs proof-of-residence oaths on election day. The form must include space for the maximum number of individuals for whom a voter may sign proof-of-residence oaths. For each proof-of-residence oath, the form must include a statement that the individual: (i) is registered to vote in the precinct or is an employee of a residential facility in the precinct, (ii) personally knows that the voter is a resident of the precinct, and (iii) is making the statement on oath. The form must include a space for the voter's printed name, signature, telephone number, and address.

The statute also outlines the rules governing how employees of residential facilities can vouch.

Assistance for impaired voters

According to the Minnesota Secretary of State's website, people living with disablities who have trouble marking ballots on their own can be assisted in the voting booth. The page outlines rules for this process--and suggests additional safeguards:

Rules for Those Marking a Ballot for YouPeople who go with you into the voting booth to help you mark your ballot must follow certain laws.

Assistants cannot try to influence how you vote or share how you voted with others.

Assistants cannot mark your ballot if you are unable to communicate your choices.

An assistant can only physically mark ballots on behalf of a maximum of three voters each election.

They may provide other forms of assistance to an unlimited number of voters.

If someone marks a ballot on your behalf, you may show it privately to an election judge to confirm that it is correctly marked.

If you ask election judges for assistance in marking your ballot, two election judges from different major political parties must help.

Individuals or organizations that want to provide assistance to voters may consider creating safeguards to avoid any appearance of wrongdoing. This could include having two individuals provide assistance to voters together.

We post the email from the Minnesota Voters Alliance below, and look forward to more years of groundless allegations of voter fraud in Minnesota's elections as the "friends" phone in reports of perfectly legal voting by students, roommates and other people across the state.

The litany of these grievious injuries to the voter suppression advocates' sensibilities will loop across our political discourse like a bad house mix tape. Lovely.

The Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA) is working to prevent, detect, and forward to authorities for prosecution voter fraud in this November's elections.

On November 4, MVA staff will be gathered at the law offices of Mohrman, Kaardal, and Erickson. Volunteers and election law experts will be on hand to field your calls about suspected voter fraud or other election irregularities. If assistance is needed at a polling place in the Metro area, MVA staff will assist on site.

"There are a lot of directions a complaint can go," explained Andy Cilek, Executive Director of the MVA. "If a call comes in alleging a blatant, ongoing, unlawful activity in the polling place, we will contact the appropriate authorities in hope of thwarting it on the spot and send witnesses to the scene to gather more data as needed. Isolated incidents of suspected illegal voting may be referred to the appropriate county attorney or sheriff for further investigation. Our experts will determine the best course of action, call by call." In Minnesota, voter fraud is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

All calls to the hotline (877-602-9282) will be logged and used to compile statistics and assist future voter fraud research.

We do not expect you to be in a position to determine whether actual fraud is occurring and we are not asking that you take any action other than to inform us. What we want to know about are circumstances that could be indicative of ineligible voting. Armed with your input, after the election, we can look into the registrations and voting in that precinct with the hope of determining truly what happened.

Here are some of the main circumstances we would like to hear about:

Bus load(s) of voters

Vouching for more than one person

Same address used by more than two persons

Students registering without using a driver's license

Vulnerable adults being "assisted" by another person

We look forward to hearing from you!

Warm regards,

Andrew Cilek Executive Director Minnesota Voters Alliance

Photo: Some of these cheeky University of Minnesota at Morris students enjoying a 2013 ice cream social might have the nerve to vote legally on November 4, 2014. The Minnesota Voters Alliance wants its friends to phone in reports.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below: